Teenage Pregnancy Unit: Local Co-ordinators

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many local co-ordinators have been appointed to implement the policy set out in the Social Exclusion Unit's teenage pregnancy report; and what training or guidance they will receive.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Teenage Pregnancy Unit has to date received notification of 132 local co-ordinators, jointly identified by health and local authorities. The local co-ordinators are to work to local education authority/social services boundaries: there are 150 such authorities in England. The unit will follow up those areas that have not yet provided notification of their co-ordinator.
	The unit issued detailed advice on the role of the local co-ordinators to health and local authority chief executives on 7 January. The unit also held a conference for local co-ordinators on 1 March to facilitate networking and exchange of best practice. The unit will continue to provide practical support for the local co-ordinators, and will keep their training needs under review.

Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the key targets for 2000-2001 for the Medical Devices Agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have agreed the agency's key targets for 2000-2001 and copies have been placed in the Library.

Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation

Lord Filkin: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there are any changes in the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Mr Anthony Lloyd and Mr Alan Meale have been appointed as substitute members in place of Dr Tony Wright and Mr David Taylor.

Delegated Legislation

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure were laid before Parliament in each of the following years: (a) 1980; (b) 1985; (c) 1990; (d) 1995; and (e) 1999.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Some statutory instruments are laid before the House of Commons only. Accordingly the Answer refers to the number of instruments laid before that House. Records are kept on a sessional rather than an annual basis. The records for Session 1980-81 and 1985-86 indicate the number of the instruments considered by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments rather than those laid, but this excludes only any Orders in Council or draft Orders in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
	Taking those Sessions which fall towards the middle of a Parliament, and so were of roughly equivalent length, the numbers were as follows:
	
		
			 Session 
			 1980-81 793 
			 1985-86 861 
			 1990-91 1,071 
			 1995-96 1,309 
			 1998-99 1,266

Delegated Legislation

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many statutory instruments subject to the affirmative resolution procedure were laid before Parliament in each of the following years: (a) 1980; (b) 1985; (c) 1990; (d) 1995; and (e) 1999.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Some statutory instruments are laid before the House of Commons only. Accordingly the Answer refers to the number of instruments laid before that House. Records are kept on a sessional rather than an annual basis. The records for Session 1980-81 and 1985-86 indicate the number of instruments considered by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments rather than those laid, but this excludes only any Orders in Council or draft Orders in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
	Taking those Sessions which fall toward the middle of a Parliament, and so were of roughly equivalent length, the numbers were as follows:
	
		
			 Session 
			 1980-81 130 
			 1985-86 158 
			 1990-91 201 
			 1995-96 199 
			 1998-99 178

Delegated Legislation

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On how many occasions statutory instruments have been debated on the floor of the House of Commons in each of the last 10 years.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Records are kept on a sessional rather than an annual basis, and several related instruments may be debated on a single occasion. The figures are as follows:
	
		
			 Session No. of Debates No. of Instruments debated 
			 1989-90 47 56 
			 1990-91 41 48 
			 1991-92 25 42 
			 1992-93 76 82 
			 1993-94 60 88 
			 1994-95 44 81 
			 1995-96 36 67 
			 1996-97 26 48 
			 1997-98 23 34 
			 1998-99 16 22

Ministers' Letters to Members

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidelines, if any, exist to specify the period within which Ministers who, in debate, have offered to write to Members of the House should do so.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Individual Ministers are responsible for following up commitments to write to noble Lords and honourable Members. The time taken to write will normally depend on the complexity of the issue raised.

The e-Envoy

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which Minister is responsible for the work of its e-Envoy.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The e-Envoy (Alex Allan) reports on a day-to-day basis through the e-Minister (Patricia Hewitt) and the Minister for e-Government (Ian McCartney) as appropriate, while also having a direct link to the Prime Minister.

PFI and Partnership Projects: Value

Lord Shore of Stepney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total value of the private finance initiative and partnership projects so far negotiated; and what, if any, part of these totals count against the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The most recent figures were given by the Chief Secretary on 21 December, House of Commons Official Report, cols. 578-579W. These are being updated at present and will be published in the 2000 PSBR.

Smuggling: Lost Revenues

Lord Shore of Stepney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the estimates for the loss of revenue to the Treasury due to (a) smuggling and (b) increased personal allowances in respect of the import of tobacco and tobacco products and wines, spirits and other alcohol products from the Member States of the European Union.[HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: HM Customs and Excise's latest estimates for smuggling of alcohol and tobacco were published in paragraph 5.99, table 5.1 of the Pre-Budget Report, published on 9 November 1999.
	Duty-free personal allowances in respect of the import of tobacco and tobacco products and wines, spirits and other alcohol products from the member states of the European Union were abolished on 1 July 1999. Estimates for revenue losses due to legitimate duty-paid cross-border shopping are also included in table 5.1 of the Pre-Budget Report.

Duty Free Goods Imported from EU States

Lord Shore of Stepney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When agreement was reached on the tax free limits of importing tobacco and alcohol products from the member states of the European Union; what were those quantified limits; what is the legal base for their observance; and what action the Government intend to take to reduce these limits.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The original agreement setting limits on the amounts of duty free tobacco and alcohol an individual can import from another EU member state was set by the EU Commission in Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969. This directive together with subsequent amendments have all been enacted into UK legislation.
	Until 31 December 1992, the quantified limits were:
	200 cigarettes; or 100 cigarillos; or 50 cigars; or 250 gm of tobacco;
	2 litres of still table wine;
	1 litre of spirits or strong liqueurs over 22 per cent volume; or 2 litres of fortified wine, sparkling wine or other liqueurs;
	60cc./ml of perfume;
	250cc./ml of toilet water; and
	£36 worth of all other goods including gifts and souvenirs.
	Since the implementation of the Single Market on 1 January 1993, there has been no restriction in the quantity/value of goods travellers may import into the UK from another member state, provided they are not for a commercial purpose.

Tourism Summit: Report

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the report of the Tourism Summit held on 1 March.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A report of the Tourism Summit will be published in time for the next meeting of the Tourism Forum on 18 April.

Internet Stocks: Misleading Information

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the context of Internet and technology stocks, adequate procedures are in place to protect investors from "scalping" and "pumping and dumping".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are already provisions in place to combat mischiefs of this sort. Rules governing the conduct of advisers currently prohibit "scalping", where an investment advisor holding shares does not disclose this fact to clients when advising them to buy the shares. These rules require advisers to treat investors fairly in their dealings with them. People engaged in "pumping and dumping", by issuing misleading information about a security in order to inflate the price and taking advantage of this by selling shares previously bought at a lower price, may be guilty of a criminal offence under Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986. This offence is carried forward in the Financial Services and Markets Bill. However, to complement the criminal powers, the Bill also contains a civil market abuse regime which will cover giving a false or misleading impression of supply of or demand for shares or of the price of investments.

Internet Stocks: Misleading Information

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are concerned at the proliferation of websites, particularly those beyond the scope of United Kingdom regulatory bodies, offering often unsubstantiated and inaccurate share tips; and, if so, what action they propose to take to protect investors from them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The authorities are concerned that investors should be aware of the risks of trading solely on the information obtained from such sites. Education of investors so that they can determine the merits of information, from whatever source, is the best general defence against people seeking to mislead them. Earlier this month, the Financial Services Authority issued an investor alert about bulletin boards and chat rooms. In addition, making misleading statements can be a criminal offence under the Financial Services Act 1986. The new civil market abuse regime in the Financial Services and Markets Bill will also cover giving a false or misleading impression of supply of or demand for shares or of the price of investments.

Scottish Parliament Buildings

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To what extent United Kingdom taxpayers will be expected to pay for the difference between the original estimate and the total final cost of the proposed new Scottish Parliament buildings at Holyrood, Edinburgh, including site preparations and fees.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The costs of the Scottish Parliament buildings will be met from the Scottish Assigned Budget, the rules for the determination of which were published in the Statement of Funding Policy published by HM Treasury on 31 March 1999.

Scottish Parliament Buildings

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they propose to take in relation to the cost overruns for the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood in Edinburgh.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Funding of the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Football for Girls

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Blackstone on 16 December 1999 (WA 56-57), what meetings they have held in 2000 with the Football Association to discuss ways of increasing participation by girls in football at school; and what action has been taken by both the Government and the Football Association as a direct consequence of those meetings.

Baroness Blackstone: DfEE officials met the Football Association on 17 January 2000. At that meeting the Football Association endorsed the need to encourage girls to participate more in sport generally, not just football. They also endorsed the changes to the National Curriculum for September 2000, which emphasise the health-related fitness aspects of physical education, as well as games. Their views have been taken on board in the Government's thinking on the future of sport and PE in schools and more generally. The FA will look further at how they can raise the profile of football for both girls and boys at school in this context.

Harlan-Hill Crest: BUAV Allegations

Lord Brookman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the investigation into the allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection against Harlan-Hill Crest.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Mr O'Brien, has today laid in the Library copies of the Home Office investigative report into allegations which were made available to the Home Office by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) on 29 June 1999. The BUAV's allegations were based on the evidence of a sympathiser working under cover at the establishment. The establishment is designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
	My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Mr O'Brien, received the Chief Inspector's report on 17 December after a thorough investigation into a complex series of allegations. Generally, the establishment was found to be well run and the level of compliance generally good. He did, however, take action against one breach of a condition of certification--that two animal rooms were not identified in documentation as having been checked as required on two dates during the last two years. The Certificate holder received an admonition for this apparent lapse and he sought reassurances from management about staffing levels. These have been given.
	Since Christmas 1999, officials have been arranging with the company, its customers and key staff, to lift confidentiality of material in the report whose disclosure would have been contrary to Section 24 of the 1986 Act as being provided in confidence. A small number of areas remain censored because they represent commercially sensitive or personnel information which cannot be disclosed.
	The greater number of blocked-out areas in the report stem from the BUAV not lifting the confidentiality of material stemming from the undercover investigator's videotapes, diary and interview with the Inspectorate in time for publication this week. When we indicated that we would publish the document in this form BUAV then indicated late yesterday that they might be prepared to lift the confidentiality restrictions on some parts of the report. My officials will contact them again today to ask them to lift their restrictions.
	The report was disclosed to the Animal Procedures Committee on 9 February for information. The committee has not had opportunity to discuss the report, nor are Ministers expressly seeking advice on its content or the action taken since the investigation was completed.

Clandestine Entrants to UK: Civil Penalties

Lord Brookman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on the production of a code of practice in relation to the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and when implementation of those provisions will commence.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clandestine entry into the United Kingdom, particularly in road haulage vehicles, has become a major abuse of the immigration control in recent years. The number of clandestine entrants identified is currently running at about 2,000 each month and the Government are determined to take action to tackle this growing problem.
	Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for a penalty for each clandestine entrant carried to be levied on the person or persons responsible. It also provides for the detention in certain circumstances of the transporter or vehicle in which the clandestine entrants arrived against payment of the penalty.
	The civil penalty is an important measure to enable us to deal effectively with an escalating problem. It will be implemented on 3 April 2000 in relation to clandestine entrants arriving in road vehicles.
	We have consulted widely with a number of representative bodies on a Code of Practice for vehicles to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants. The draft Code of Practice for Vehicles, which has been amended to take account of comments expressed during the consultation process, was laid before Parliament on 3 March and will come into force on 3 April.

Asylum Support Scheme: Housing

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will give details of accommodation so far identified for use by the Home Office to house asylum-seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and, in particular, what offers of property for this purpose have been made by the Ministry of Defence Housing Executive.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Details of the tenders to provide accommodation under the new asylum support scheme are commercially confidential. I am, therefore, unable to provide the information requested.

Segregated Prisoners: Policy

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy on the sharing of cells by prisoners segregated either for their own protection or for reasons of good order and discipline; and how many prisoners are sharing cells in segregation units, in what prisons.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The policy is that all prisoners segregated in their own interest or for reasons of good order or discipline should be located in single cells. There are no statistics held centrally but a survey of all prisons on 2 March 2000 revealed that there were no prisoners sharing cells in segregation units who have been segregated for reasons of good order or discipline.
	On the same date there were 74 prisoners segregated in their own interest sharing cells in segregation units in eight prisons as follows:
	
		
			 Prison Prisoners in shared cells 
			 Camphill 4 
			 Gloucester 26 
			 Leeds 14 
			 Lewes 16 
			 Nottingham 4 
			 Pentonville 6 
			 Ranby 2 
			 Reading 2 
			  
			 Total 74

Kainos Courses in Prisons

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what prisons the Kainos Community is allowed to operate, under what contractual or other arrangements and at what cost to the Prison Service; whether they intend to measure the recidivism rates of prisoners who have been through courses run by the Kainos Community; and, if so, with what control groups such prisoners will be compared.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Kainos Community is currently operating in three establishments, The Verne, Swaleside, and Highpoint, in order to enable an independent evaluation to take place of the programme. The Kainos Trust and the Prison Service are drawing up a joint memorandum of understanding for the period of this evaluation. The Prison Service is providing no funding for the programme. As with any voluntary group that operates in a prison, there are some minimal costs in providing facilities.
	The measurement of the recidivism rates of prisoners who have been through the programme will be part of the evaluation of the Kainos programme. The evaluation will include an assessment of the extent to which those rates vary from the normal rate for such offenders. It will be for the researchers to propose the best way of doing this--for example, by a control group or by comparison of actual and predicted rates.

Country Assessments

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Country Assessment Unit of the Home Office has studied the reports of the Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups of the United Nations Human Rights Commission; and which country assessments have been amended so far in the light of this information.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Officials in the Country Information and Policy Unit draw on a wide range of material in preparing all the country assessments, including the reports of the United Nations' Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups. These reports carry significant weight and are studied as a matter of course. An index that forms part of each assessment identifies the documents from which the assessment has been sourced. In a few instances, the reports may not feature as a source reference--for example, when the issues reported on are not commonly raised by asylum seekers in the United Kingdom or where the information they contain is reflected in other material in the public domain.
	Amendments are made every six months and take account of all the latest information and comments. It is not possible to ascribe particular changes to particular publications or comments.

Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many comments have been received about the proposal contained in Fairer, Faster and Firmer for a bond scheme for visitors to the United Kingdom; how many responses have been received to the consultation document Financial Bonds for Visitors; and, of both of these, how many have supported the proposal and how many have opposed it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We shall make an announcement about the results of the consultation process on the design of a pilot study for financial bonds in due course, covering both the White Paper proposal and the specific consultation paper.

Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many cases of applicants for visitors' visas in the last 12 months have involved the difficult decisions referred to in Fairer, Faster and Firmer, such that the applicant would therefore be required to put forward a financial bond.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: No figures are available for family visits (the category that the bond scheme is intended for) involving decisions of this kind. The proposal arose not from statistics on refusals but from representations to Ministers from members of ethnic minority communities who expressed concern that some relatives might have had their entry clearance applications refused because of doubts as to their intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of their visit.

Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people in a full year they expect to be deterred from visiting the United Kingdom as a result of the scheme to require financial bonds from certain visitors; and how many people they expect to be able to visit the United Kingdom, a bond having been supplied, who would not otherwise have been given a visa.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We do not expect that anybody will be deterred from visiting the United Kingdom as a result of the bond scheme; its purpose is to facilitate the grant of entry clearance in borderline cases where there are doubts as to the intention of the visitors to leave the United Kingdom at end of their visit. The number of extra grants is expected to be small, with most cases (as now) being clear grants or refusals of entry clearance.

Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What criteria they will use to determine whether the financial bond scheme proposed in Fairer, Faster and Firmer is discriminatory; and what process will be used to assess whether those criteria have been met.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The criteria for assessing whether a bond has been requested in a genuinely borderline case, and for ensuring that the scheme is not operated in a discriminatory way, have yet to be decided, but we expect to compare pre-pilot family visitor entry clearance application, grant and refusal figures with those arising during the pilot, together with random checking of a selection of applications where a bond has been requested.

Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which Embassies or High Commissions are likely to be included in the proposed pilot scheme envisaged in the consultation document Financial Bonds for Visitors.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have not yet decided where to run the pilot scheme.

Asylum Refusals

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For each year since 1990, how many asylum seekers from each of Turkey, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Ghana, Nigeria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Romania were refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain after full consideration; how many were refused under paragraph 340 of the Immigration Rules; how many were refused on safe third country grounds; and how many were removed from the United Kingdom.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The available information is given in the tables.
	
		Removals and voluntary departures (1) of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, by selected nationality, 1990 to 1999
		
			  1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 
			 Turkey n/a n/a 130 130 145 120 190 250 185 n/a 
			 Sri Lanka n/a n/a 60 75 55 65 80 95 140 n/a 
			 Pakistan n/a n/a 45 90 170 190 420 650 710 n/a 
			 India n/a n/a 165 225 290 355 685 825 870 n/a 
			 Ghana n/a n/a 90 130 175 210 270 370 285 n/a 
			 Nigeria n/a n/a 65 105 210 310 400 505 515 n/a 
			 former Czechoslovakia  of whom: n/a n/a 5 * 20 10 65 225 390 n/a 
			 Czech Republic (2) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 50 110 160 n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 15 120 230 n/a 
			 Poland n/a n/a 10 105 40 245 285 815 605 n/a 
			 Romania n/a n/a 35 105 90 200 260 305 335 n/a 
		
	
	Data are rounded to 5.
	* represents 1 or 2.
	n/a data are not available.
	(1) Includes any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application for port applicants.
	Includes removals under enforcement powers and those departing voluntarily following enforcement action for in-country applicants.
	(2) Figures for Czech Republic include holders of Czechoslovakian passports.
	n/a=Not available
	1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * =1 or 2.
	2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1990
		
			  Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals Non-compliance refusals 
			 Turkey 65 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Sri Lanka 10 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pakistan 115 n/a n/a n/a 
			 India 80 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Ghana 50 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Nigeria 10 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Czech  Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Poland n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Romania 10 n/a n/a n/a 
		
	
	n/a=Not available.
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1991
		
			  Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non- compliance refusals(1) 
			 Turkey 75 50 25 -- 
			 Sri Lanka 20 15 5 -- 
			 Pakistan 180 170 * 5 
			 India 235 210 20 5 
			 Ghana 70 55 10 5 
			 Nigeria 15 10 5 -- 
			 Czech  Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Poland n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Romania 40 40 * * 
		
	
	n/a = Not available.
	(1)Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
	(1)Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1)Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1)Paragraph 101 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1992
		
			  Total refusals(1) Substantive refusals(1) 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) 
			 Turkey 645 150 90 405 
			 Sri Lanka 215 10 50 150 
			 Pakistan 1,015 680 15 325 
			 India 1,160 735 65 360 
			 Ghana 1,210 285 25 900 
			 Nigeria 210 75 10 120 
			 Czech  Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Poland 15 * 10 5 
			 Romania 90 50 10 30 
		
	
	n/a = not available.
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant has arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 101 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1993
		
			  Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) 
			 Turkey 710 485 110 115 
			 Sri Lanka 260 95 120 45 
			 Pakistan 755 565 20 170 
			 India 1,115 925 25 165 
			 Ghana 925 605 35 285 
			 Nigeria 350 210 20 120 
			 Czech  Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Poland 55 25 25 5 
			 Romania 170 130 25 15 
		
	
	n/a=Not available.
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 180F of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1994
		
			  Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals (1) Non-compliance refusals (1) 
			 Turkey 1,000 775 80 150 
			 Sri Lanka 955 805 80 70 
			 Pakistan 1,970 1,765 15 190 
			 India 1,415 1,190 20 200 
			 Ghana 1,610 1,240 60 310 
			 Nigeria 1,485 910 40 535 
			 Czech  Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Poland 90 60 20 10 
			 Romania 520 460 30 30 
		
	
	n/a=Not available.
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1) (1)in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1995
		
			 Non- 
			  Total Sustantive 3rd country compliance 
			  refusals refusals refusals (1) refusals (1) 
			 Turkey 910 720 150 40 
			 Sri Lanka 1,225 1,130 75 20 
			 Pakistan 1,640 1,545 35 60 
			 India 1,960 1,770 50 140 
			 Ghana 1,960 1,750 40 170 
			 Nigeria 2,625 2,135 95 395 
			  
			 Czech  Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Poland 435 345 80 10 
			 Romania 555 400 145 10 
		
	
	n/a = Not available.
	(1)Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
	(1)Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1)Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1)Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependents, 1996
		
			  Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) 
			 Turkey 1,330 1,000 310 20 
			 Sri Lanka 2,115 2,030 50 35 
			 Pakistan 2,620 2,385 30 205 
			 India 3,690 3,185 45 460 
			 Ghana 2,265 2,155 10 100 
			 Nigeria 5,120 4,525 60 535 
			 Czech  Republic 50 15 35 -- 
			 Slovakia 110 65 50 -- 
			 Poland 830 770 50 10 
			 Romania 760 630 80 55 
		
	
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1) (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1997
		
			  Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) 
			 Turkey 1,475 65 950 410 50 
			 Sri Lanka 1,710 780 850 60 20 
			 Pakistan 2,870 2,505 35 40 295 
			 India 2,395 1,800 20 30 540 
			 Ghana 1,330 1,030 40 10 245 
			 Nigeria 4,315 1,525 1,635 40 1,115 
			 Czech Republic 210 105 25 70 10 
			 Slovakia 375 225 20 125 5 
			 Poland 860 765 -- 50 45 
			 Romania 635 440 * 45 150 
		
	
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1998
		
			  Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals(1) 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) 
			 Turkey 1,015 35 820 110 50 
			 Sri Lanka 1,950 415 1,170 260 90 
			 Pakistan 1,950 1,545 90 75 250 
			 India 1,450 930 50 50 425 
			 Ghana 425 275 55 5 95 
			 Nigeria 1,840 685 700 15 440 
			 Czech Republic 180 170 10 * * 
			 Slovakia 335 90 240 * * 
			 Poland 1,070 1,015 5 * 50 
			 Romania 1,155 780 10 60 305 
		
	
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with *=1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant has arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	
		Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January to May 1999 -- Principal applicants
		
			  Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) Grants of ELR under backlog criteria (1), (1) Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria (1), (1) 
			 Turkey 100 -- 25 70 * 505 5 
			 Sri Lanka 385 75 170 130 10 85 -- 
			 Pakistan 280 220 30 25 10 60 -- 
			 India 175 130 10 25 10 30 -- 
			 Ghana 45 25 15 * 5 850 5 
			 Nigeria 310 130 135 10 35 50 5 
			 Czech Republic 50 20 30 -- * -- -- 
			 Slovakia 90 5 85 -- -- -- -- 
			 Poland 160 150 10 -- -- -- -- 
			 Romania 60 25 * 35 -- 5 -- 
		
	
	(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
	(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
	(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
	(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
	(1) Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre '96 act asylum backlog.
	(1) May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.
	(1) May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.